But the parson's nose image itself was prompted by seeing my own nose on Friday, just two weeks after its reconstruction following four unsuccessful attempts to remove a basal cell carcinoma plus one final, successful, but radical attempt. I currently have part of my forehead attached to the side of my nose — and it literally looks like nothing more than the rear end of a stuffed chook.
I hope you’re following Joseph Merrick’s lead to put your head in a bag.
Brad, your generosity, skill and humility are the soul of this community.
thanks
Can I add my congratulations to the authors of the winning book on paralanguage. Although I have not yet got round to reading the book itself — too much interesting stuff coming out at the moment! — I did attend the launch last year at the ACU in North Sydney, where it shared the stage with the book on science teaching co-authored by Len Unsworth and his team. As I remember remarking to my landlady afterwards, the launch itself was one of the first such events I had attended post-lockdown, and it was no fluffy PR exercise but a serious academic session, with (from memory) all of the authors of both books either present or attending via Zoom and talking about their experience in doing the research and writing it up.Speaking personally, I am delighted to see such products of multidisciplinary team projects getting published. Given the enormous range of relevant knowledge, it is not feasible anymore for one or two authors from the same discipline to cover it all, and it was very clear from the launch of both books how much the participants had benefited from the cross-fertilisation and collegiality that such collaborations encourage.My congratulations again to the co-authors of the winning book — as well as to the runners up, all of whose books look like must reads — and to the organising committee for carrying through such a worthy — and frankly very cheering! — project.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the authors' model of "paralanguage" is Cléirigh's model of body language, rebranded as their own work. See The Inaugural MAK Halliday Prize Awarded To Cléirigh's Plagiarisers.
[2] To be clear, what the authors talked about was the meetings they had in order to try and understand Cléirigh's very simple model.
[3] To be clear, the model was created by one person, Cléirigh, using just one theory in one discipline, SFL.
I would like to kindly remind you all that this list has hundreds of people on it and exchanges like this are the main reason why people don't like to post questions to the list. These exchanges are not furthering our understanding and if you want to continue your 'display' tactics, maybe do it on your own time. This line of 'argumentation' (whatever) is not helpful to this community. It's easy to just delete messages but the silent majority will simply not feel that they can take part in the community. What is this list for??I think there was some discussion at an AGM not too long ago about principles of communication within our community. Can we stop and think whether our messages are inclusive, kind, clear, etc?I know I'm not the moderator any longer but this is really tiring.
Blogger Comments:
With regard to Fontaine's one positive judgement, and her own behaviour in this respect, see
Well, your news is mixed — sad for Cardiff U and all of us in the European community; but the good news overwhelms this sense of loss! So warm congratulations,And also applause to Université de Québec à Trois-Rivières for having made such a brilliant choice!
This is certainly a very exciting development — for you, but also for the whole SFL community: new possibilities will open up / be opened up by you! You’ll create a new community around you — without losing the vibrant community that you have been part of in Europe. As you say "surely Québec is European right?” — You’ll certainly help build a new trans-Atlantic bridge, create new collaborative opportunities.
Blogger Comments:
Mick O'Donnell wrote to sys-func on 14/7/22 at 9:16:
Jim Martin has always impressed me as someone who, while respecting the whole, is willing to change core assumptions, when the needs of linguistic modeling require it. … what is important is that Jim has been (and continues to be) willing to throw out established ideas (even his own) if they don't fit new data. And anyone who is not willing to do similarly is kidding themselves if they think they are doing linguistic science.
and David Rose replied at 9:23:
At great personal risk
Blogger Comments:
His communion with Mandela, at such a distance in so many respects …
It was sad to be reminded of RH’s ‘refutation’ of JRM’s work, especially as he constantly refers and defers to her throughout English Text and ever since, building the field respectfully on the work of its elders. There has been nothing else like it in SFL that I know of. The nearest in my own experience was the dismissive review of The Western Desert Code in AJL, which aimed to keep Australian descriptivists in the dark about SFL for another generation. It was sad I think for herself, as Cohesion in English established her as a major authority in discourse analysis, but her later research retreated from its visionary discourse semantics to cataloguing message types. It was sad for MAKH because it asked him to choose between his ally and leader of the next SFL generation, and the stance of his life partner. He also retreated from the discourse semantic trajectory of CinE to ambivalence and guarded acknowledgements, such as in Ch9 of IFG...‘The organisation of text is semantic rather than lexicogrammatical, and (at least as far as cohesion is concerned; we are not going into questions of register/ contextual structure in this book; see Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Hasan, 1984; Martin, 1992: Ch. 7, Martin & Rose, 2003, 2008) much looser than that of grammatical units.’It was sad also for SFL, as it aimed to split a community that was and remains vulnerable to its institutional competitors. A sad legacy for a brilliant career.
Blogger Comments:
[1] Rose begins by negatively appreciating Kellogg mentioning Hasan's refutation of Martin's model of context because the refutation — which was without equal — was Hasan being disrespectful to Martin despite the fact that Martin has always been respectful of Hasan. That is, Rose is not at all concerned with the question of whether the refutation has any validity.
On the positive judgement of Martin's propriety, the reason why Martin "constantly refers" to Hasan in his English Text (1992) is that Halliday & Hasan (1976) is the data for Martin's theorising. That is, as explained here, Martin's discourse semantics is Halliday & Hasan's cohesion misunderstood, relocated from textual lexicogrammar, and rebranded as Martin's systems.
Moreover, it is simply not true that Martin has always been respectful of Hasan. For example, with regard to Martin (1992), see, for example:
Presenting Misunderstandings Of Hasan's Cohesive Harmony As Deficiencies In The Model
Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Coherence As Formalist
Not Acknowledging Hasan As Intellectual Source
Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source
Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan
David Rose replied to David Kellogg on sys-func on 16/6/22 at 12:00:
I tried to say this more subtly before, as ‘judgement overtaking reason’ …the rhetorical problem with forceful appreciations like ‘rejection’ and ‘refutation’, is that they shut down readers’ options for evaluation, and so weaken the writer’s argument, except for the already convinced.
Blogger Comments:
Here Rose falsely accuses Kellogg of using judgement instead of reason while doing this very thing himself. That is, instead of presenting a reasoned response on the validity of the content of Kellogg's post, Rose merely judges Kellogg as judging instead of reasoning.
What David Kellogg actually wrote to sys-func on 16/6/22 at 11:18:
There is an excellent discussion of the important differences (and also the even more important similarities) between the 1961 grammar and the SFL of ten years later in
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., Wang, B., Ma, Y.-Y. and Mwinllaaru, I.N. (2022). Systemic Functional Insights on Language and Linguistics. Singapore: Springer Nature.See p. 104, and table 4.3. But see also Christian Matthiessen's comment on how scale-&-category theory was already neo-Firthian, because it introduced the paradigmatic axis as co-equal to the syntagmatic one. Matthiessen has a beautiful demonstration of how this made it easier for Halliday to deal with consonant clusters (because you could treat them as offering different paradigmatic systems at different points in the syntagmatic structure) and how that, in turn, led to the clear distinction between instantiation and realisation that is rejected in the Martin model.But see also Ruqaiya Hasan's refutation of "connotative semiotic" and "discourse semantics" in Volume Four of her Collected Works:Hasan, R. (2016). Context in the System and Process of Language. London: Equinox.
DK’s argument seems reasonable until perhaps point e) when for some reason, judgement overtakes reason (which DK himself might admit;).
Blogger Comments:
e) … The idea that the "discourse semantics" of Martin and Rose is somehow "implicit" in the examples of MAKH is a classic revisionist move on the part of Rose. In this case, it's an extremely weak revisionist move, since the theoretician (MAKH) is also the primary data gatherer and data interpreter, and he explicitly rejects this possibility. …
See also David Rose Denying The Revisionism Of Martin's Discourse Semantics.
Alongside notional reasoning from above we could explore reactances (such as those reviewed in detail in Deploying Functional Grammar, Chapter 4 Section 3 Troubleshooting).
For a practical introduction to SFG, Deploying Functional Grammar provides a helpful clear model.
See also IFG Table 5-45 Criteria for distinguishing process types. (Chapter 5 of IFG discusses these thoroughly, for each process type. Deploying Functional Grammar makes them easy)
I now seem to be blocked from posting to sysfunc. Seems it’s become just another blog.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, Rose is not blocked from posting to the Sys-Func email list. Rose subscribed to the list using one of his email accounts, but tries to post messages to the list from a different unsubscribed email account. Because of this, the list software does not recognise him as a list member and so his posts are not distributed to list members. That is, Rose is merely blaming someone else for his own incompetence. Rose can easily remedy the situation himself by posting to the list from his subscribed email address, or by subscribing his unsubscribed address to the list.
Just forwarding the below on behalf of David Rose as his emails are seemingly still not being allowed through to the sysfunc list.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, before Doran posted this, Rose had been sent a notice advising him that his sending address was not subscribed, followed by an invitation to subscribe his sending address to the sys-func list. He has not acted on the invitation. (The moderator can only initiate the subscription process; only the subscriber can complete the subscription process.)
It might be added that Doran himself did not allow a post on the ASFLA site which informed colleagues how to join the sys-func list. (The information was promptly removed very soon after it was posted.)
The problem is that the linguistic field is a not a hierarchical but a horizontal knowledge structure, in which theories continually threaten to replace each other. The insecurity this breeds feeds an impulse to boundary policing (that your younger staff have experienced). We also have this problem within our SFL sub-field, that would blow up occasionally on this list. (One reason it has gone so quiet in recent years.) My point was that SFL is institutionally vulnerable. For its survival, I think we need to find ways to work against the boundary policing impulse, no matter how logically it is framed.
Appraised
|
Appraisal
|
|
Polarity
|
Attitude
|
|
boundary policing
|
negative
|
judgement: propriety
|
the deployment of logic
|
negative
|
appreciation: reaction
|
Throughout this long development, from 600 BC to the present day, philosophers have been divided into those who wished to tighten social bonds and those who wished to relax them. With this difference, others have been associated. The disciplinarians have advocated some system of dogma, either old or new, and have therefore been compelled to be, in greater or lesser degree, hostile to science, since their dogmas could not be proved empirically. They have almost invariably taught that happiness is not the good, but that ‘nobility’ or ‘heroism’ is to be preferred. They have had a sympathy with irrational parts of human nature, since they have felt reason to be inimical to social cohesion. The libertarians, on the other hand, with the exception of the extreme anarchists, have tended to be scientific, utilitarian, rationalistic, hostile to violent passion, and enemies of all the more profound forms of religion. This conflict existed in Greece before the rise of we recognise as philosophy, and is already quite explicit in the earliest Greek thought. In changing forms, it has persisted down to the present day, and no doubt will persist for many ages to come.
